Mobility insights from the International Transport Forum at the OECD

Year: 2018

By Nicolas Beaumont, Senior Vice-President, Sustainable Development and Mobility, Michelin

The 800 million vehicles on today’s roads worldwide are fitted with 1.2 billion tires manufactured from over 10 million tonnes of natural rubber. And vehicle numbers are likely to double over the next quarter century. The transport sector is the main consumer of rubber – three-quarters of global production – with the remainder destined primarily for the health sector. To ensure rubber is produced in a sustainable manner to help contribute to tomorrow’s sustainable mobility, it is vital for tire manufacturers to join forces.

An industry-wide approach to production is possible as natural rubber lends itself particularly well to responsible and sustainable cultivation. As a fully renewable natural resource, rubber fits perfectly into a circular economic model. Rubber trees are also beneficial in terms of carbon storage, fixing twenty times more CO2 than most other plantation crops. And at the end of its rubber-producing lifetime (of around 30 years), a rubber tree can have a second life cycle as biomass or in furniture production. Rubber growing is highly labour-intensive; it is estimated that the livelihood of some 6 000 households depend directly on it, with 20 million indirect jobs also supported. Plantation workers earn an income all year round – except for a one-month wintering period – as the trees are tapped to collect latex every day. Promoting social and responsible natural rubber practices is therefore also a means to foster inclusive growth.

In the move towards more sustainable practices, manufacturers have taken responsibility by engaging concrete measures. Some market players have made voluntary public commitments to adopt a responsible natural rubber policy. These include Michelin (2016), Pirelli (2017) and more recently Bridgestone (2018) and Goodyear (2018). The natural rubber producers undertake to fight deforestation, improve the living and working conditions of farmers and encourage best farming practices. Some carry out social and environmental audits of the main rubber suppliers or send agronomists to advise rubber growers on better farming practices.

Increasing yield is a lever which can be harnessed to prevent more land being lost and to mitigate the risk of deforestation, as well as boosting income for rubber growers. Some rubber plantations in Côte d’Ivoire boast a yield per hectare of over 2.2 tonnes per year. Yet in Indonesia, the world’s second rubber producer, yields stand at half this figure. A number of factors can explain this disparity: soil preparation, choice of tree variety, density of plantations, quality of tapping operations, organisation of harvesting and rubber production. Fostering best farming practices is one of the keys to upping yield per hectare. It would make a doubling of rubber production possible in a country like Indonesia without increasing the amount of cultivated land necessary and associated negative impacts on the environment.

Since 2015, Michelin has been deploying an innovative tool called Rubberway. It is designed to map supply chain risks and identify best practices in the various regions concerned: Thailand, Indonesia, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana and Brazil. Of the millions of farmers dependent on rubber, 85% are smallholders. In fact, one single rubber processing factory can receive its rubber supply from as many as 10 000 different growers! The Rubberway tool consists of a questionnaire sent to direct suppliers and even smallholders by means of an app which makes it possible to reach further down the chain below Tier 1 suppliers and middlemen. The findings of these thousands of questionnaires will give an insight into farming conditions and practices in the plantations in various parts of the world and help us better tailor the farming assistance required.

The Tire Industry Project (TIP) is an industry-led forum grouping the eleven tire manufacturers, which account for 65% of global tire production capacity. The launch of a global sustainable natural rubber platform was announced at the World Rubber Summit in Colombo, Sri Lanka, in April. Its purpose is to continuously improve the natural rubber value chain. A diverse group of stakeholders are actively participating in the development of this initiative including NGOs like the WWF, BirdLife International, FSC, Global Witness, Mighty Earth or Rainforest International.

All these joint initiatives which benefit the agricultural sector are another step on the road to sustainable natural rubber. It is an ongoing challenge we are addressing – all together – with sustainable mobility for everyone on the horizon.

Michelin is a member of the ITF’s Corporate Partnership Board (CPB): our platform for dialogue with business. Find out more at www.itf-oecd.org/CPB

Only around 5% of the 6.2 million trucks in the EU and 11.2m truck in the US are ever checked for compliance with existing rules – whether these concern the vehicles themselves, the humans who use them or the load they carry. This lack of enforcement causes avoidable crashes, increased road maintenance costs and economic costs due to market distortions.

Data could be a powerful tool for improved enforcement of the rules in road freight. Indeed, a recent ITF report recommended moving towards digital governance approaches. The concept of “Data-led Commercial Vehicle Enforcement” (CVE) is operationalizing this approach, facilitating on-the-spot roadside controls as well as on-the-fly checks.

Only around 5% of trucks in Europe and the US are ever subject to compliance checks

Data can help control vehicle condition (for instance whether maximum load weights are exceeded or the roadworthiness is imperiled) as well as monitor driver behavior (e.g. via digitalized tachograph records) or verify compliance with the rules of the market, for example by checking that a company is licensed for freight transport of a specific type and in a given region.

Many rules, one enforcement mechanism

Market-based rules regulate the access of road haulage operators to the road transport market. In parts of the world with smaller countries, road transport often means cross-border traffic. To assure the functioning of the international road freight markets, the most important rules and regulations that govern road haulage are supranational.

Driver-based rules are those that apply to professional truck drivers and their specific actions when at the wheel, resting or in the state of availability. The regulation of driving time is a good example of a driver-based rule. In the European Union and the countries of the European Agreement Concerning the Work of Crews of Vehicles Engaged in International Road Transport (AETR), it is enforced by fitting every goods vehicle with a total weight of more than 3.5 tonnes with a tachograph that records driving and rest times. Similar regulations and requirements for drivers apply in the United States and in Canada.

On-board units and receivers built into the infrastructure used by trucks can ensure that enforcement agencies are always in the picture

The road infrastructure automatically surveys a vehicle’s total weight and stops it from using weight-sensitive road sections – a bridge for instance – if it is too heavy. Similarly, existing information from the onboard systems on vehicle emissions could be used monitor compliance with the limits on CO2 or particle emissions required by vehicle condition rules – and signal that the vehicle may not enter, say, a zone restricted to electric vehicles.

The technology is already available. Now it is for governments to create market access and automated enforcement instruments: certified equipment, legal and administrative cooperation between national enforcement bodies or radio spectrum free of interference.

Volker Schneble is Managing Director Germany of Kapsch TrafficCom AG, a provider of intelligent transport systems. Kapsch works in tolling, traffic management, smart urban mobility, traffic safety and security, and connected vehicles. As a member of the International Transport Forum’s Corporate Partnership Board, Kapsch contributes its expertise to transport-related research projects undertaken at the ITF.

Like this:

Automated driving holds promise of a revolutionary new way of providing transport and mobility. Indeed, the added value in improved productivity and efficiency that can be extracted in commercial transport operations appears to be substantial.

But, the question of the impact of automation on road safety tends to divide the public in two distinct camps – one lauding the life-saving potential, and the other envisioning a future of self-aware vehicles running wild, causing death and destruction.

So, where are we heading? Well, I believe the reality of the challenges involved is becoming apparent as more automation pilots are deployed and experience accumulates. Improving road safety on a system-wide level will prove challenging. Yet, under favorable circumstances automation concepts are showing great safety potential. Favorable is a key word here.

The vast majority of incidents and crashes involve human behavior. It is easy, then, to suppose that taking the human out of the loop will reduce crashes correspondingly. Yet, I think intuitively we understand there is something wrong with this logic. And the reason is most driving involves no crashes. An attentive person is fantastic at anticipating events in complex situations – much better indeed than any AI outside of Hollywood.

What strikes me in the debate on automation is the tendency to confuse automation and safety – especially, I fear, among those supposedly well-informed in the area. It is easy to be tricked by the fact that active safety and automation share technologies. Naturally, there will be no successful deployment of automation unless it is safe. But, the development of one does not follow naturally from the other. Both areas require dedicated efforts.

In conventional driving, the human driver performs both operational maneuvers and the highly intricate task of anticipating and mitigating critical situations. The objective of safety is largely to introduce barriers – conceptual and real – to minimize the consequences of mistakes and errors.

The challenge for a highly-automated driving system, then, is to accomplish both the basic task of driving and anticipating and avoiding emerging critical situations. In other words, it must be able to avoid or mitigate any situation it can reasonably encounter in its operational domain – not just mitigate the rare instances missed by a human driver.

Do I sound skeptic about automation? Well, in fact, I am quite the opposite. I believe vehicle automation will make great contributions to road safety. But, it needs to be done right – with safety as a primary design factor. This means vehicles need to behave safely – be sensibly cautious and use good margins. It also means the set of conditions under which the vehicle can safely operate is actually an integral part of the solution itself. In other words, the when, where and how, are just as important as the what. With joint effort we have a chance to develop conditions on a system level that are favorable for safe automation. It may mean starting in confined – or by other means controlled – areas, and then working systematically to increase the number of applications viable for automated driving.

Done right we will be able to reap all the benefits automation offers in terms of productivity and efficiency while enhancing safety.

That’s the Volvo way.

Peter Kronberg will join other transport leaders from across the globe for the ITF 2018 Summit on “Transport Safety and Security” in Leipzig, Germany held from 23 to 25 May. Find out more…

Like this:

Maritime shipping now also has its “Paris Agreement”. On Friday, 13 April, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and its member states agreed on an “Initial GHG Strategy” for shipping. This strategy sets out an absolute target to reduce shipping emission by “at least” 50% by 2050. It also commits the sector to pursue efforts to phase out CO2 emissions in line with the objective of Paris Climate Agreement.

Is this compromise (for that’s what it is) a historic achievement or a collection of weasel words? How did we get here? And what still needs to be done? In my view, the deal struck at IMO is a huge step – for at least three reasons.

First, the IMO’s Initial GHG Strategy is the first big response of shipping to the climate change challenge since the introduction of an energy efficiency measure for ships, the Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI), in 2012. The EEDI, developed in the wake of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the predecessor of the Paris Agreement, is a binding global regulation. But it has at best a moderate positive impact on shipping’s greenhouse gas emissions,which will materialise only over the long term (given that the EEDI only applies to new ships, while the average life time of ships is more than 25 years).

Looking good

Second, the new agreement makes shipping – seen as a laggard by some – suddenly look better than the aviation industry, the other transport sector that was exempt from the Paris Agreement because its emissions defy national boundaries. The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), IMO’s sister body that regulates global aviation, was much faster than the IMO to respond to the Paris Agreement. However, its solution now seems less robust than what the maritime sector is now undertaking. For the moment, aviation has adopted a voluntary offset scheme but avoided to set an absolute emission reduction target as the one just agreed at IMO.

Third, shipping and IMO delegates have come a long way in their approach to combatting climate change. An absolute emission target for shipping was unthinkable a few years ago, and even two weeks ago far from certain.

In short, this commitment goes further than anything in the past or in similar sectors. And it surpasses what seemed possible only since very recently. So yes, this was probably the best possible outcome for all those who wanted shipping to align with the Paris temperature goals. Even if the Initial GHG Strategy does not quite achieve that (a 50% cut will not suffice to get shipping on a pathway to the famous 1.5-degree scenario), it sends a clear signal that the sector needs to decarbonise. This will not be without impact on how ship owners act. It will also drive technological innovation for cleaner shipping. Not least, the IMO agreement is a boost for multilateral solutions; all too rare these days.

So, the agreement on the IMO Initial GHG Strategy provides a good reason to uncork some champagne – for those who need a reason for that.

Litmus test of statesmanship

How did this little miracle happen? A combination of things was at work: A technical debate became politicised. A powerful actor threatened unilateral action. Laggards were effectively shamed. Evidence made an impact.

Politicisation took the form of the Tony de Brum declaration. This text, supported by more than 45 countries, demanded that shipping align itself with the goals of the Paris Agreement. Pushed by French President Emmanuel Macron and Hilda Heine, President of the Marshall Islands, during the One Planet Summit in November 2017 the declaration was a political masterstroke: It made shipping emissions a strategic political priority and a litmus test of statesmanship, rather than the arcane topic for shipping technocrats and corporate lobbyists it had been for so long. Intense cooperation among officials of the most ambitious countries, sailing under the flag of the “High Ambition Coalition”, provided important backup.

Another success factor was the threat of unilateral action by the EU. Lack of progress at IMO, the Europeans made clear, could lead (and can still lead) to inclusion of shipping in the emission-trading scheme of the EU-ETS. This was a rather big stick to wield: The prospect of scattered regional rather than global regulation horrifies the shipping sector. EU parliamentarians attended IMO meetings and added pressure by lending support to the European Commission’s Plan B.

A new degree of transparency

Added Into this mix was a new degree of transparency. Journalists are not allowed to report on what countries say during IMO meetings. Yet social media and leaks to media made it possible for the public to follow the positions of individual countries. Public blaming and shaming by environmental NGOs and activist Twitter accounts like @imoclimate as well as extensive coverage of country’s respective positions in the press seem to have had an effect – most of the countries less eager to commit to strong ambitions backed down in the end.

That said, much remains to be done. Finding agreement on short-term measures to reduce emissions will be a tough job. One of the guiding principles in the IMO Initial GHG Strategy is the concept of “common but differentiated responsibilities” (“CBDR” in climate-change speak), meaning while there is a shared obligation to address climate change, not everyone can be held responsible at the same level. The introduction of this approach (adopted from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, UNFCCC) to the context of shipping (where all ships are treated equally, irrespective of whether they fly the flag of a developing or developed country) is likely to make discussions on the concrete measures to cut CO2 complex and heated.

But that will come tomorrow. For now, let us just enjoy a historic moment.

Like this:

Opinion Piece by Jean Todt, FIA President and UN Special Envoy for Road Safety

For a number of years now we have been complaining about the consequences of road crashes, the millions of premature deaths, the tens of millions of serious injuries that impair so many people for life. We have been documenting the progression of the scourge, gathering statistics, disseminating facts and figures. We have organized countless conferences, symposiums, workshops, to debate what to do to curb this seemingly unstoppable pandemics. Only early on we agreed on one thing: it actually was not unstoppable, and more to the point, we knew what needed to be done to stop it.

Of course over time we refined our approach, deepened our knowledge, improved our understanding of what worked best in which circumstances. Numerous institutions, including the World Bank and United Nations organizations, kept organizing training events to disseminate those findings and equip national and local governments with the tools they needed to fight this recurring disease. Then the international community took notice and the Decade of Action for Road Safety was launched with the objective of reversing the trend, of eventually bringing down for good the mounting statistics of road crashes.

But let’s face it: despite all the good will, despite these multiple efforts, despite all the talk and conferences, people keep dying on the road in unacceptable numbers.

So this is the time to change gears. This is the time to realize once and for all that a world in which 3,500 people die on the road every day for no reason can hardly be called civilized. This is the time to move away from figures, statistics and reports, and look at what this is all about. And this is about flesh and blood. This is about saving lives.

We may be reaching a turning point. Part of the reasons why so many efforts to date have met with too little success has to do with insufficient resources. The countries suffering most from road crashes are also those so much in need of support on so many fronts that it becomes hard for their governments to set aside funding for something too many development experts have long considered to be some kind of collateral damage of growth. Hopefully today nobody would claim this any longer, so all what remains is the need to find the proper means to deal with what should be a simple question, a question of life and death.

This week the United Nations General Assembly will establish the United Nations Road Safety Trust Fund. We must all hope this will prove to be the tool we were missing in our quest to muster the resources needed to effectively turn the tide on road crashes.

Simultaneously the Safer City Streets network will meet in Rome for the third time, at the invitation of the International Transport Forum and with the support of the International Automobile Federation (FIA). Let’s not forget about half of fatal crashes occur in cities.

And in a month from now, the eleventh edition of the International Transport Forum will take place in Leipzig, under the theme Transport Safety and Security. This sequence must not be just another round of well-intentioned debates. It must epitomize a renewed global commitment, a renewed global will, so that when we meet again a year from now, in New York City, in Rome, in Leipzig, in any far corner of this world, we can see an actual downturn in road deaths and injuries.

Like this:

Three questions to Jann Fehlauer, Head of Vehicle Testing, DEKRA Automotive

Mr Fehlauer, the DEKRA Road Safety Report 2018, which will be published in June, deals with freight transport. How do you rate the current level of traffic safety in this area?

If we look to Europe, the trend of recent years points in the right direction. Commercial vehicles are becoming safer, and the number of serious accidents is declining, with increasing traffic density. However, there is no reason to rest on our laurels. The fact is: Especially heavy trucks accidents can result in serious, even fatal, injuries.

What role do modern driver assistance systems play in this context?

Much has already been achieved in recent years. Modern emergency brake assistants can prevent many of the worst accidents, for example driving up on a traffic jam end. However, the potential must be exploited even more efficiently. These are issues such as the market penetration of security systems, their disconnectability, as well as how drivers are informed about the effects and limitations of these systems.

What other starting points do you see to improve traffic safety in the commercial vehicle sector?

We have to take actions at all levels: the vehicles have to be safe, which means, among other things, that their technical condition has to be checked independently on a regular basis. The infrastructure must be as secure as possible. But the human factor also plays a key role. The best safety systems are useless if the driver does not use them. And that applies not only to modern electronic systems, but also to supposedly well-known things like the safety belt.

Jann Fehlauer will join other transport leaders from across the globe for the ITF 2018 Summit on “Transport Safety and Security” in Leipzig, Germany held from 23 to 25 May. Find out more…

Like this:

Laurent Troger, President of Bombardier Transportation, talks about the impact of digitization on the safety and security of rail and associated costs, harmonisation of technical and legal standards, and industry risks.

“We always put safety first, no exceptions. Now more than ever we believe that our relentless evolution of technical safety is a vital prerequisite for successful mobility solutions. Digitalization is a key enabler to safety standards in the transportation industry. This is for the benefit of rail operators, passengers and society”, Laurent Troger.

Safety and security are obviously very important in transport, but ensuring them carries significant costs. How can operators and manufacturers make mobility safer and more secure while keeping it affordable?

Rail manufacturers have shown that competition and innovation can deliver the safety standards we need at the price we want. For example, as the technology used to develop autonomous vehicles matures, its price drops and Bombardier is already applying those technologies to our rail vehicles. One example is our system to detect obstacles, a cost-effective breakthrough that exponentially improves tram safety. Taken overall, rail is still a very affordable mobility option. The capital costs for a new train account for around one third of its full lifetime cost and today’s trains are safer, more energy efficient, more reliable and easier to maintain then they have ever been.

Technical and legal standards play a huge role in making transportation safe and secure. From the global player’s perspective, where is more harmonisation needed to further improve safety and security?

We have made great progress with the existing European regulations supported by European standards and a single EU-wide authorisation process. These measures have already reduced costs and removed persistent administrative barriers. Signalling standards such as ERTMS (European Rail Traffic Management System) and ETCS (European Train Control System) are also positive achievements that we should be proud of, but are something we still need to build upon.

However, one area where I do see a need to maintain our focus on harmonization is in cyber security. Bombardier is working with other manufacturers, operators, authorities and assessment organizations to create a single, coherent set of safety standards. As critical infrastructures, the cyber security of the entire rail ecosystem’s technical integrity needs to be a focal point in the years ahead. Everyone from manufacturer and operator to the owner and the authority has a significant role to play in ensuring our rail systems aren’t compromised.

Do you see digitalisation and innovation as increasing the safety of rail mobility? Or do you view them as risks?

Digitalization is already improving security. Due to the relative affordability of advanced sensors, manufacturers are leveraging the power of mobility innovations for rolling stock services. This implies predictive maintenance or communication based train control for signalling. Both have increased safety and reduced the potential for human error while improving efficiency. Of course, the Internet of Things, interconnectivity and the potential integration of personal devices into operator’s platforms do present new challenges. But they are challenges that we will mitigate with cyber security solutions like the introduction of faster and more robust telecommunications – for example the Long-Term Evolution, hi-speed wireless standard for signalling infrastructure. It might not be easy to address these new challenges as they emerge, but it’s certainly not impossible. Either way, Bombardier chooses to see digitalization as an advantage and an opportunity.

Laurent Troger will join other transport leaders from across the globe for the ITF 2018 Summit on “Transport Safety and Security” in Leipzig, Germany held from 23 to 25 May. Find out more…